From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Obiotta v. Dukes Sys. Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 6, 2015
132 A.D.3d 421 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

10-06-2015

Raymond OBIOTTA, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. DUKES SYSTEM CORP., et al., Defendants–Respondents, Carolyn Gardner, et al., Defendants.

Law Offices of Rommel Daniel, New York (Bryan Brockington of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale (Henry Mascia of counsel), for respondents.


Law Offices of Rommel Daniel, New York (Bryan Brockington of counsel), for appellant.

Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale (Henry Mascia of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edgar G. Walker, J.), entered January 2, 2014, granting the motion of defendants Dukes System Corp. and Jesus Baello for leave to file a late motion for summary judgment and, upon doing so, granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants acknowledged that their motion for summary judgment was filed 21 days after the expiration of the time period provided in CPLR 3212(a) as a result of an error by their attorney in calendaring the deadline. The motion court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in finding good cause for the delay based on the detailed affidavit by counsel concerning the error (see Gonzalez v. 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 95 N.Y.2d 124, 128–129, 711 N.Y.S.2d 131, 733 N.E.2d 203 [2000] ).

The court also properly granted the motion for summary judgment. Defendant Baello, the driver of the truck, testified that his truck was stopped when the vehicle that was towing plaintiff's vehicle crossed the double yellow line into oncoming traffic, and swerved to avoid hitting his truck, causing plaintiff's vehicle to collide with the truck. In opposition, plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to defendants' negligence. Contrary to plaintiff's argument, Baello's alleged failure to take evasive action was not the proximate cause of the accident (see Garcia v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 10 A.D.3d 339, 340, 781 N.Y.S.2d 93 [1st Dept. 2004] ).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

GONZALEZ, P.J., MAZZARELLI, SWEENY, RICHTER, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Obiotta v. Dukes Sys. Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 6, 2015
132 A.D.3d 421 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Obiotta v. Dukes Sys. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Raymond OBIOTTA, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. DUKES SYSTEM CORP., et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 6, 2015

Citations

132 A.D.3d 421 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 7217
17 N.Y.S.3d 290

Citing Cases

Stevens v. RX Med. Dynamics, LLC

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in considering defendants' motion for summary…

Sando v. Angilletta

Under these circumstances, Defendant Angilletta has failed to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to…